Seòmar agus comataidhean

What is key and what we cannot forget is the regulations and what the bill provides us with the powers to do. When it comes to developing future schemes, that co-development process is hugely important and it is the foundation of our approach, as I have outlined. The committee will, of course, have a scrutiny role over all of that as we bring forward that further detail. As I have already outlined, the rural support plan is really there to set out our strategic priorities and it builds on what we have already set out through our vision for agriculture and the route map.

I know that the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee asked us to provide a draft or an outline of the rural support plan prior to stage 3, so I am happy to commit to doing that. I can provide an outline of what it might look like. However, as I have outlined in relation to the first version of the plan, it will be a living document and it will be iterative, given the phase and the period of transition that we are in.

I will return to my comments, if I can. I hope that members will allow me to finish them, because what I will set out goes a long way towards addressing the concerns that have been expressed.

We intend for the rural support plan to include the role that the four support tiers, as per the policy memorandum, will play in contributing to the delivery of the bill objectives in section 1. The tiers do not exist in isolation and it is intended that they will operate as part of a coherent programme approach to future support, as outlined in our route map.

In our climate change action policy package, which was announced by the Cabinet Secretary for Wellbeing Economy, Net Zero and Energy, Màiri McAllan, we stated that tier 2 will be important for delivering outcomes of climate and nature. We will ensure that we better articulate the role of each tier of the overall framework in driving actions to meet the bill’s objectives. It will also include greater detail on the support that will be provided, including scheme descriptions, expected outcomes, anticipated uptake and indicative budgets. That is not an exhaustive list. Some of the detail that is asked for is already in place for current EU CAP schemes and is published, but I understand that bringing all of that together in one place will provide greater transparency and understanding of the breadth of our programme of support. I will explore what more we can provide on that.

There have been a lot of asks about budgets and providing more clarity in the longer term, but unfortunately there is no getting around the fact that we are still in a position of having no UK Government budget guarantees from 2025. That has clear implications for our ability to plan agricultural support. I have already set out that funding for tiers 1 and 2 will constitute at least 70 per cent of the overall funding envelope and that a further announcement about the proportion of funding between tiers 1 and 2 will be made in June this year. I commit to seeing what additional clarity could be provided, even if any figures would only be indicative.

The contribution of our overall agricultural reform programme in meeting statutory duties relating to agriculture, the environment, biodiversity and land will be considered, too. We have already set out our climate change action policy package and the changes that we are making, so I will not reiterate those, but it is important that we clearly outline and articulate what our programme is doing to help agriculture meet emissions reduction targets.

Further details of the agricultural reform programme co-development process include what we engage on, where we engage, who we engage with, how we engage and the expected outputs that will feed into our route map. That will provide important clarity on the engagement and consultation that already exist and where the rural support plan sits in that process.

The indicative programme of secondary legislation that will follow the bill and deliver on the route map will be considered, too. I have already outlined changes from 2025, which have been scheduled into the legislative timetable for later this year. I will investigate what further advance notice can usefully and accurately be provided on the existing timeline and the quantity of secondary legislation that will follow the bill, subject to parliamentary timetables and decision making.

Further information will be given, too, on the role of rural support plans and the process of creating, amending and reporting on them. Under the CAP, a lot of work was done in developing the Scottish rural development programme as it currently exists, and we followed a set process for amending and reporting on the programme. A lot of that work went unseen and continues as we conclude the formal process of closing the EU 2014-20 programme this year. I want to learn the lessons from that—on what has and has not worked well—to help us inform the development of a rural support plan that meets our needs now and in the future, and how best to manage the new framework and its schemes in the future.

How and when we will monitor, evaluate and report on our support, including through a future monitoring and evaluation framework, will be included, too. Again, considerable reporting work is taking place on the EU SRDP and, last month, we commenced the formal ex-post evaluation for the entire 2014-20 programming period. What we spend and how we spend it on future support needs to be effectively monitored and evaluated. Substantial amounts of public funding are given to our farmers, crofters and land managers, and it is only right that we seek a meaningful return on that investment of public money and that progress can be charted in delivering on the bill’s objectives, outcomes and statutory duties.

I hope that the various points that I have outlined help to alleviate some of the concerns around the rural support plan sections as drafted and around the absence of explicit mention of monitoring and evaluation. I ask that, when considering the amendments, we do so on the basis of what I have outlined and that we take those issues away to collaboratively come back at stage 3 with a robust wraparound offer that involves amendments to the current provisions on the rural support plan.

I will turn to some of the specific amendments. Amendments 28, 29, 33, 34, 36, 39 and 41 require the Scottish ministers to prepare a plan by regulations. The purpose appears to be to ensure that each iteration of the plan is subject to prior approval by Parliament. I believe that that is too restrictive, because although Parliament must—and, of course, will—have its due place and, in particular, will be able to scrutinise all the secondary legislation that we need to put in place to support and deliver the plans, the Government also needs to be able to get on and develop and manage support for our farmers and communities, which means working with stakeholders and experts for that purpose.

We could not focus on the task at hand if Parliament had an on-going veto on the plans and proposals that we describe in successive plans and even, potentially, on quite modest changes. That would, for example, divert some of the finite resource that we have away from the co-development of future policy with industry and partners. The bill already sets clear requirements for the content, scrutiny and considerations of a plan, including that it is laid before Parliament. I have committed to returning to those issues with more explicit clarity at stage 3.

The actual detail of changes, including new schemes in the different tiers, will be provided for in secondary legislation using the proposed powers of the bill. That will provide parliamentary scrutiny, as I said, and it will also involve further consultation and the associated impact assessments. Parliament will also be able to scrutinise the plan at portfolio evidence sessions, during the budget process and through the various matters that are set out in section 3.

For those reasons, I consider that the existing levels of scrutiny, through a wide range of regulatory powers and responsibilities relating to different sections in the bill that relate to the rural support plan, are sufficient. Therefore, I hope that Colin Smyth agrees to withdraw or not move his amendments. If he does so, I urge members not to support them.

I understand the intent behind Colin Smyth’s amendment 112, but I do not believe that it is necessary. It is worth noting that there is already provision in that regard in the bill, which requires that a rural support plan

“sets out strategic priorities for providing support”

and

“a description of each support scheme”.

Section 3(2)(a) sets out that ministers “must have regard” to objectives that are

“set out in section 1”.

As I have set out, I intend to return at stage 3 with a much more explicit framing for the rural support plan and will consider how the plan might cover the proposals in Colin Smyth’s amendment 112. For those reasons, I believe that the amendment is not needed. I hope that Colin Smyth agrees and will not move it.

In relation to amendments 30 and 31, as I have outlined, I would love to be in a position to legislate to provide for a multi-annual financial framework in the bill. We had that certainty and clarity under the CAP, with the EU’s multi-annual financial framework but, unfortunately, the reality is that Westminster has not given any commitment on future funding or on what basis that might be provided. Currently, UK Government allocations are on an annual basis. There are no funding guarantees from 2025, and the current UK Government has refused to engage on the issue.

First of all, I disagree with your point about throwing a grenade at amendments. As I outlined in my comments, I think that there are lots of helpful things in these amendments, but there are contradictory points, too. Just as there are, as I have said, different consultation requirements to consider, there are different things to consider in various parts of the bill, and it is only right that we are able to look at all of this holistically and that we are not looking at amendments in a piecemeal way. I hope that, in everything that I have outlined with regard to all the areas that we want to look at and reconsider for stage 3, what I have said addresses some of the concerns that have been expressed.

On amendment 126, I would, as I noted in my response to amendments 28 and 29, point out that the Parliament’s committees have the essential role that has been referred to. I urge members not to support amendment 126 on that basis.

On amendment 127, I would just say that, as with Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 125, the amendments requiring consultation on the rural support plan provide no proportionality with regard to scale, which, again, could be routine. Accordingly, I ask Rachael Hamilton not to move amendment 127.

Amendment 128 seeks to define the rationale that Colin Smyth’s amendment 115 asks for in providing greater detail about schemes. Again, I welcome the positive intent behind the amendment, but I must ask members to resist it so that I can return at stage 3 with—as I have repeated many times—a more realistic and workable wraparound that sets out how ministers will provide details in the plan. I therefore ask the member not to move the amendment. If he does, I urge members not to support it.

Finally, on amendment 129, I hope that Colin Smyth will be reassured to know that it is always my intention to act in a manner that we

“consider best contributes to achieving the objectives”.

In fact, that is what I am seeking to do right now in relation to Scottish agriculture. Although I welcome the positive intent behind the amendment, I note that it takes out the current duties in the bill to prepare a plan and for ministers to exercise their functions while having regard to that plan. I am sure that that was not the intention behind the amendment. I therefore ask Colin Smyth not to move amendment 129. If he does, I urge committee members not to support it.

Sorry—if you had allowed me to come on to my next point, I was actually going to say that I agree with what you are trying to set out. It is helpful, as you have just said, to raise awareness of food miles and the importance of that. My only point is that it is not appropriate to provide for that in the rural support plan. There are a whole variety of issues in relation to food miles, and it is not solely for this bill to address them. I think, therefore, that the bill is not the appropriate place for what you have set out in amendment 120, and I ask you not to move it.

With regard to amendment 121, as I noted in my response to amendments 28 and 29, in the name of Colin Smyth, the Parliament and its committees will have an essential role in scrutinising the secondary legislation that will need to be approved in order for us to deliver on the plan. The amendment offers a further timing, and it would simply serve no practical purpose when that later scrutiny—alongside my offer for a more holistic set of duties around the plan—would ensure that the aspects of what, when, how, why and with whom are very clear. I ask Rachael Hamilton not to move amendment 121.

Colin Smyth’s amendment 35 proposes another arbitrary deadline for the production of the rural support plan—which would, if in effect, impede the development of the first plan. The first plan will need to take into account the final form of the bill on its becoming an act and the timing and detail of any secondary legislation that uses the powers of that act. The plan will need to deal with the transition between old and new support, as per the route map, with the detail being under active co-development. The deadline that is in amendment 35 would risk the short-term amendments to the plan as more detail of the transition period emerges. Overall, it would result in a sub-optimal plan that might not even reflect, as it needs to do, all the detail of the different tiers and schemes that will be set out in secondary legislation. On that basis, I ask Colin Smyth not to move amendment 35.

Similarly, Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 122 would require the publication of the rural support plan no later than six months after royal assent. For the reasons that I set out in relation to amendment 35, I urge members not to support amendment 122.

Tim Eagle’s amendment 123 takes us into a bit of a bidding war in relation to that. Again, for the reasons that I have already outlined, I ask members not to support amendment 123.

I understand the intent behind Tim Eagle’s amendment 124. Recipients of support want as much clarity and early notice as possible of future support plans. However, requiring the publication of subsequent plans 12 months before the end of the preceding plan period, instead of the six months that is currently in the bill, would leave limited time for review and evaluation, because we also have to undertake engagement and consultation on that. That change would therefore ultimately be unworkable, which is why I am not in favour of amendment 124.

As I made clear at stage 1 and in speaking to the foregoing amendments, the Scottish Government’s approach is always to co-develop with industry and wider partners to ensure that legislation and regulation are best fitted to work and deliver outcomes. Colin Smyth’s amendment 37 would cut across that activity. However, again, I understand the intent of that amendment and, as I set out in response to Alasdair Allan’s amendment 119, I want to give further thought to the requirements to consult that are in the bill. I therefore hope that Colin Smyth does not move amendment 37.

If taken in isolation, what amendment 38 would require the Scottish ministers to do would not be proportionate to the scale of any changes to the rural support plan, some of which could be minor in nature. Indeed, it could hold up what could simply be a routine or minor change as part of normal programme management. I have offered to ensure that a much clearer duty on monitoring and evaluating agricultural support is set out in stage 3 amendments. I therefore hope that Colin Smyth will not move amendment 38.

On amendment 39, as previously indicated, it would be unhelpful to require the rural support plan to be subject to regulations, especially given that there is already a commitment to lay the plan before Parliament and publish it. I therefore urge members not to support amendment 39.

I addressed the issue of arbitrary statutory consultation periods in response to Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 118. Amendment 125 presents the same issue applied to rural support plan amendments. It would provide no proportionality to the scale of any such amendment, which could be routine. I have already outlined that our approach is to always co-develop with our industry and wider partners and that I would report on how we do that, with whom and to what effect, in the rural support plan. I hope that what I have said offers some reassurance to Beatrice Wishart that there is no need to create such a statutory period and that she will not move amendment 125.

Amendment 40 would introduce an arbitrary requirement that does not provide any proportionality. It is restrictive and would divert finite resource away from the co-development of future policy with industry and our partners. Each and every time that ministers opted to amend a rural support plan, it would require a full review. As schemes and support will change over time—particularly during that initial phase and the transition period—that could turn out to be a meaningless exercise that does not provide any value simply because there is a statutory requirement to do it. I therefore hope that Colin Smyth does not move amendment 40.

On amendment 126, I noted in my response to amendments 28 and 29 that the Parliament and its committees have an essential role in scrutinising the secondary legislation that will be needed in order to deliver on that plan. I therefore urge members to reject amendment 126.

I was not going to make any more comments. I had already finished.

As I touched on, there are other amendments in relation to fair work. We always have to be careful when it comes to fair work considerations, because they cut across different competences. We need to ensure that what we are introducing is within the devolved competence of the Scottish Parliament.

I do not know whether you are referencing the real living wage. The fair work agenda is quite broad and covers a host of other matters. We have tried to show how we are having regard to the fair work principles that we have set out, and amendment 5 is the best way for us to accomplish that.

I fundamentally disagree with what Rachael Hamilton has just said with regard to our support for rural communities. We are absolutely committed to that.

The amendment seeks to create a statutory requirement to establish and run a rural community wealth fund that would fund rural projects, and it leaves it to ministers to decide what the fund would be for and who would receive support. However, part 4 of schedule 1 to the bill already provides for powers to support rural communities and the rural economy, while section 4 already enables ministers to add, remove or modify any of the purposes for support set out in schedule 1. As a result, the amendment adds nothing new to those powers and provisions, and it is not needed.

I am proud that the Scottish Government already provides important support for rural communities through a range of programmes, such as community-led local development, the Scottish Rural Network and Scottish Rural Action, which do vital and important work in our communities across Scotland. It is fully my intention that support for rural communities will continue into the future through the powers that the bill provides, and in order to determine what that support might look like and to learn from current schemes, we will undertake a review and set out details of future proposals after the bill is enacted. I therefore urge the committee not to support amendment 133.

We are not cutting across the competences of the Scottish Agricultural Wages Board. That is still its remit and responsibility, and we are not changing its powers with the bill. I ask the committee to accept amendment 5.

Colin Smyth’s amendment 130 reflects a change that was proposed by amendment 129, which I also oppose, not least because I do not think that it has the intended effect. For the reasons that I explained in relation to amendment 129, I ask members to reject amendment 130.

I turn to amendment 131. Scotland shares the EU’s founding principles and core values and, through the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021, is already committed to maintaining alignment with EU laws and policy, where that is practicable. Aligning the Scottish Government’s future policy with the objectives and policy developments of CAP 2023-27, where practicable, ensures that, if Scotland has the opportunity to re-enter the EU in the future, it will be in a position to do so.

I appreciate that that is in direct contrast with the aims of Rachael Hamilton, who wishes to continue to impose on the people of Scotland the outcome of a Brexit that we did not vote for and that is proving disastrous for Scotland’s economy and society. However, it is important that we take what steps we can to mirror what may develop in the EU, not least to ensure that we can continue to trade there. I therefore encourage the committee to reject amendment 131.

I understand and share the motivation behind Rhoda Grant’s amendment 43, and that of Brian Whittle’s amendment 44. High-quality nutritious food that is locally and sustainably produced is key to our economic, environmental and social wellbeing and our health. That is why one objective in the bill is

“the production of high-quality food”.

As drafted, the bill commits ministers to have regard to

“any other statutory duty ... relating to agriculture or the environment”.

As we have touched on, that will include the good food nation plans. That will ensure consideration in the rural support plan of any proposals and policies that are in the good food nation plan. The bill will ensure that farmers, crofters and land managers have the right support to contribute to our good food nation ambitions and local food strategy.

Similarly, as drafted, the bill already involves consideration of the objectives of a plan that is produced under section 1 of the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022. Although I absolutely acknowledge the positive intent of amendment 44, I do not believe that it is required. Neither is amendment 43 necessary. Having reassured both Rhoda Grant and Brian Whittle, I hope that they will not move their respective amendments. If they do, I encourage the committee to reject them.

Amendment 45 would require the Scottish ministers to have regard to

“any other financial support provided by the Scottish Government to agriculture and rural communities”

when preparing or amending a rural support plan. The effect of that amendment is unclear. If, for example, we give support to a young farmer for continuing professional development, do we have to take into account their bursary or free tuition for an initial qualification? The amendment could also mean that a community that gets a grant from the Scottish land fund to purchase land might not then be eligible for support from a future LEADER-type scheme that could help to build the capacity of that community organisation to best manage its assets.

I hope that those examples have illustrated why amendment 45 could be problematic. We need to be wary of unintended consequences. For that reason, I encourage the committee to reject amendment 45.

I accept the premise of amendment 46, as I understand that land and agriculture are inherently linked—not least because I have portfolio responsibility for both areas. However, land is already covered in the reference to “environment”, and we are seeking to be more explicit in our references to “land” through other amendments. For that reason, I encourage the committee to reject Rhoda Grant’s amendment 46.

I fully agree with the intent behind Emma Harper’s amendment 47 and I am happy to support it. The Scottish Government understands the importance of food security and the interest in the issue from members of the committee as well as our wider stakeholders. Amendment 47 would ensure that ministers have regard to

“the need for sustainable food systems and supply chains in delivering food security”

when we prepare or update a rural support plan.

I am happy to support Ariane Burgess’s amendment 48, and I hope that the committee will support it, too. Small producers, tenant farmers, crofters and agricultural co-operative societies make a vital contribution to our diverse agricultural industry, and diversity is important to ensuring innovation, sustainability, resilience and, ultimately, food security for Scotland and its rural communities. Amendment 48 supports that and seeks to require the Scottish ministers to have regard to

“the benefits of a diverse and resilient agricultural sector including small producers, tenant farmers, crofters and agricultural co-operative societies”

when preparing or amending their rural support plan.

Colin Smyth’s amendment 49 would add a requirement to consult a range of “relevant persons”, and provides a wide list of those persons and organisations. I absolutely understand the intention behind and desire for that amendment, which is to ensure that we consult widely on issues. We already do that and will absolutely continue to do that. The Scottish Government also has a statutory requirement to carry out a range of consultations with public bodies in different circumstances as well as impact assessments in a wide range of circumstances.

As I have already talked about at length today, the co-developed nature of our future agricultural support framework ensures that we are constantly engaging with rural partners. We also have the agriculture reform implementation oversight board, which is supported by an academic advisory panel, to ensure that we take an evidence-based approach to our future proposals.

The route map that I have talked about is designed to provide our farmers, crofters, land managers and the general public with information on what we are planning when and how we will do that. The process of secondary legislation that will be required to make those future proposals a reality has requirements built in through impact assessments, including the strategic environmental assessment.

I have already set out my intention to introduce a more robust package on the rural support plan that will include detail of our continued agricultural reform programme engagement. That will include details of who and how we must consult. I will carefully consider Colin Smyth’s amendment and the bodies that he listed as part of that. I ask Colin Smyth not to press his amendment 130 and to allow me to work with him to bring forward something ahead of stage 3. If amendment 130 is agreed to today, I might wish to come back with some revised wording at stage 3, but I would be happy to engage with members on that.

I appreciate the concerns that members have set out regarding the level of scrutiny of some of the enabling powers in the bill and the desire to see more details about our intentions to bring forward the secondary legislation. I am also grateful for the report of the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee, which broadly supported the proposed procedural treatment for legislation to be brought forward under the bill.

Amendment 132 would require the Scottish ministers to publish a timetable and further details of regulations made under the act as “soon as practicable” after royal assent. I have spoken at length, today and in the stage 1 debate, about my commitment to co-developing future schemes, and I would not want to pre-empt or rush that co-development in order to publish such a timetable.

The agricultural route map, which was updated earlier this year, outlines the support that remains available to continue to provide stability for farmers and crofters as that future support is co-designed. It also provides information and guidance on the phased approach to introducing the new support framework and on when the industry can expect new support to be made available. I will, of course, continue to update the route map as we move through that process.

It would also be my intention to provide Parliament with as much information and notice as possible on many of the proposed statutory instruments at various points once the bill is passed. I understand completely the need to enable Parliament and its committees to prepare their work programmes, and I do not think that surprises in relation to that work would be in anybody’s interest. I hope that that reassures members and encourages them not to support the amendment.

In relation to amendment 139, the bill is a framework bill and we expect to make a significant number of regulations during the delivery phase. An affirmative instrument would require significantly more resource and support than a negative one, and scrutiny for the enabling powers in the bill has been set at a level that will help us to deliver the substantial change that is needed.

Any change to the list of purposes of the bill is expected to be modest in scope and to come about following engagement with the sector and stakeholders as part of the co-design process of future schemes, which, as I continue to reiterate, we are fully committed to. Therefore, I still consider that it would be proportionate for that power to be subject to the negative procedure, so I do not support Tim Eagle’s amendment 139.

Section 7 provides for ministers to be able to make negative regulations about guidance—for example, requiring that specified guidance is laid before Parliament, or that decision makers must have regard to particular guidance. Amendment 156 would require any regulations that are made under section 7 to be subject to the affirmative procedure. I do not think that that would be proportionate, particularly in the case of minor changes to guidance. I therefore ask the committee to reject amendment 156.

Tim Eagle’s amendment 168 would change the parliamentary procedure for regulations that are made under section 10 from negative to affirmative. The circumstances in which it might be appropriate to refuse or recover support vary widely. For example, it might be appropriate to refuse support to a person with a relevant conviction, such as in relation to support of livestock activities where the person has been convicted of an animal cruelty offences. When ministers make regulations for such purposes, it is important that we do so timeously and without delay, as facts and events emerge. It is vital that we ensure that public funds are being appropriately allocated, but we also recognise that refusal or recovery of funds can have a significant impact on a business. It is important that the regulations on refusal and recovery of funds receive appropriate scrutiny, but I am confident that our commitment to transparent decision making ensures that the negative procedure is still suitable here. Given that, I urge the committee to reject the amendment.

Section 13 of the bill is the main power under which regulations about support will be made. I expect there to be a considerable number of regulations that are made under that power and regulations that are made and thereafter adjusted in light of experience and changing circumstances. Therefore, the procedure in the bill is what is sometimes described as an “either-way power”, which allows for the procedure for scrutiny to be chosen according to the significance, or otherwise, of what is to be done. That is designed to ensure that the valuable time of Parliament is utilised in an appropriate and proportionate way.

Rhoda Grant’s amendment 77 would require any change by regulation, no matter how minor, to be subject to the affirmative procedure. The amendment does not provide for any proportionality in relation to the scale of a change that might be made, and the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee in particular agreed that that power should be an either-way power. For that reason, I ask the committee not to support that amendment.

Amendment 172 would make all regulations under section 13, which relate to administrative matters, eligibility and enforcement, subject to the affirmative procedure. I think that it would also remove proportionality and bring minor administrative changes into scope. Section 13(5) of the bill as drafted sets out what significant provisions would require the affirmative procedure. As I believe that approach to be proportionate and sensible, I encourage the committee not to support Tim Eagle’s amendment 172.

Amendment 184 would change the procedure to affirmative for any regulations made under section 18 for the processing of information. It is worth noting that, in its report, which was published in January, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee accepted the choice of negative procedure for section 18 regulations, agreeing with our choice of procedure and our reasons for that choice as stated in our delegated powers memorandum. The negative procedure is the appropriate procedure, as the power in this section will be exercised only for the purpose of ensuring that information used for administrative purposes and information that is shared when there is a public interest in doing so is processed lawfully. The appropriate privacy impact assessments will be carried out and there will, in particular, be consultation with the Information Commissioner’s Office. We consider the negative procedure to be appropriate in this case, as it will provide a suitable level of scrutiny in respect of regulations made under the power. For that reason, I ask the committee not to support amendment 184.

On amendment 87, the bill places a duty on Scottish ministers to prepare and publish a code of practice on sustainable and regenerative agriculture. The code meets stakeholder expectation to provide a clearer understanding of the breadth of regenerative practice, and it will be a guidance document to assist in the delivery of sustainable and regenerative agriculture. It is separate from any conditionality that is linked to support, and it is not intended to be a form of regulation or enforcement. Instead, it will provide helpful guidance that can be readily updated to help farmers, crofters and land managers to adopt a range of sustainable and regenerative practices.

There is a duty on Scottish ministers, prior to publication, to lay any code or revised code before Parliament and to ensure that Parliament is able to see and comment on the code. Amendment 87, when read with amendment 84, which is in a later group, would make the code a regulation subject to the affirmative procedure, which would significantly change the nature of the guidance. It is inappropriate for material of such nature to be in a statutory instrument let alone to have such regulation subject to the affirmative procedure. I therefore ask the committee not to support amendment 87.

On amendment 90, earlier in the year, the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee considered the parliamentary procedure to be used in the bill, including in section 27(1), and its subsequent report indicated that it was content for section 27 to be subject to the negative procedure. The Scottish Government’s response highlighted, among other things, our intention to co-design a CPD regime with stakeholders. We have already commenced that process with an informal consultation on an agricultural knowledge and innovation system, which includes CPD, and we plan to consult formally on the CPD regime next year. That will ensure that the CPD regime works for industry and that it is appropriate, proportionate and adds value. Regulations brought under section 27(1) will accordingly be informed by a significant amount of stakeholder input and are often likely to involve technical and detailed matters. In the light of those points, and our agreement with the Delegated Powers and Law Reform Committee’s assessment of the procedure, I ask committee members not to support Rhoda Grant’s amendment 90.

I thank committee members for their comments on the amendments. I would agree with quite a lot of what has been said, overall.

It may be helpful, first, to set out the rationale for adopting the approach to the objectives that we did. Then I will turn to each of the amendments that have been lodged.

We published our vision for agriculture in 2022, and we developed it through extensive discussions with our core rural partners. That vision has extensive and broad support, and it sets out a route and an approach to rural Scotland that I think we all want to see.

In its purpose and objectives, the bill seeks to systemise the vision into clear strategic objectives. That was the result of considerable thought, to ensure that clear principles were applied in legislation in a way that would enable flexibility to deliver them.

I agree with the intentions behind some of the amendments in this group—for example, on some of the things that we have talked about today, such as soil health and new entrants. However, the objectives are designed not to list all possible priorities, but to be broad enough to cover a wide range of matters through the high-level wording, including issues that may emerge in the future.

There are some points that members have made that I am happy to welcome, but I ask members to bear in mind the process, which has involved key rural partners, and the strategic approach that has led us to our drafting. Although many of the amendments are well intentioned, some of them are not necessary.

I turn to Colin Smyth’s amendment 92, which seeks to create a purpose section at the beginning of the bill. Again, although the amendment is well intentioned, it is an unnecessary addition, because the bill as drafted already makes it clear that ministers must use their powers to meet the policy objectives, which will be further drawn out through the rural support plan. As we have set out a range of high-level objectives, I do not consider that we need a purpose section on top of that.

The main purpose of the bill is set out in the first paragraph. The bill does more than enable support for farmers, but the proposed purpose section is silent on support for rural communities. I do not think that that is the right approach, even if we needed a purpose section. Accordingly, I ask the committee not to support amendment 92.

I turn to Emma Harper’s amendment 93. I am proud to say that it is recognised globally that Scottish agriculture produces high-quality output. I understand that some might think that the amendment would add an unnecessary point of clarification in a Scottish bill, but setting that marker for the high-quality and regenerative future of our industry is positive, so I am happy to support amendment 93.

Beatrice Wishart’s amendment 96 seeks to remove the second overarching objective from section 1(b), which concerns the

“production of high-quality food”

and replace it with a reference to

“sustainable and high-quality agricultural and food production”.

The first objective, in section 1(a), is the

“adoption and use of sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices”.

Therefore, to a certain extent, the amendment would replicate the first objective and is unnecessary. It is also unnecessary to expand the second objective in the way that is proposed, because the reference to “high-quality food” is intended to encompass the good practices that Government expects in the production of food that might be supported under the terms of the bill, and that includes with regard to sustainability. I ask the committee not to support amendment 96.

Rhoda Grant’s amendment 20 and Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 97 seek to amend the overarching objective on high-quality food in section 1(b), so that, for the purposes of agricultural production under the act, the objective would include “food security”, under amendment 20, or the

“protection and preservation of food security”,

under amendment 97. Food security is, of course, a hugely important issue, and the Scottish Government established a food security unit last spring. That was based on the recommendations of the short-life food security and supply task force that we established together with our food and drink industry.

Although I agree with the overall sentiment behind amendments 20 and 97, I do not believe that section 1 is the right place for them. Agriculture and food security are linked, but they are not synonymous. I am more minded to support amendment 47 from Emma Harper, which is proportionate and balanced because it recognises the clearer link with rural support plans. It demonstrates our commitment to food security on the one hand, but it recognises on the other that agricultural policy on its own cannot deliver food security. For those reasons, I ask the committee not to support Rhoda Grant’s amendment 20 or Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 97.

Rachael Hamilton’s amendment 94 seeks to amend the second overarching objective set out in section 1(b) to remove the reference to “high-quality”. That would mean that, for the purposes of agricultural production under the act, the objective would be the production of food. Although I understand and appreciate the explanation that Rachael Hamilton has offered, the Government is committed to maintaining Scotland’s reputation for producing and manufacturing high-quality food and drink. The second objective supports that continued aim, and we want to continue to have a focus on support for high-quality produce. Accordingly, I ask the committee not to support amendment 94.

I am happy to have a further discussion with Rachael Hamilton on that issue, but I cannot commit to what such an amendment might look like, because I would have to consider any potential implications.

I disagree with Rachael Hamilton’s point about the explanation being woolly, because we have high standards when it comes to cross-compliance and the statutory management requirements that we have in place. Broadly, if people comply with the high, rigorous standards that we have in place, that will meet the definition of high-quality food. I am more than happy to have a conversation with Rachael Hamilton, but I ask the committee not to support amendment 94.

Colin Smyth’s amendment 95 would change the second overarching objective, set out in section 1(b), so that, for the purposes of agricultural policy under the bill, the objective would be

“the production of high-quality food and other farm products using sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices”.

The amendment is unnecessary because other products in production are included in schedule 1 to the bill, and how we want them to be produced in return for support can be covered in regulations. Food production is the core purpose of agricultural policy and I am keen that we keep that focus. Therefore, I ask the committee not to support amendment 95.

Rhoda Grant’s amendment 21 would add to the second overarching objective of agricultural policy, set out in section 1(b), which concerns the production of high-quality food. It would mean that, for the purposes of the bill, there would be an additional objective of

“access to locally produced food for every person in Scotland”.

We are absolutely committed to ensuring access to quality local food through our good food nation vision. The first draft national good food nation plan acknowledges that there is a great deal of interest in local food and in using public procurement as a tool to support the ambition for Scotland to be a good food nation. The work to achieve the aims of the amendment fits better with the purpose of the Good Food Nation (Scotland) Act 2022 and our on-going work on the national plan.

Amendment 21 would also extend the purpose and objectives of the bill beyond agricultural policy. It is the Government’s objective to enable access to locally produced food for every person in Scotland, but it does not seem right to make that the objective of agricultural policy. Therefore, I ask the committee not to support amendment 21.